The attitude polarization phenomenon: Role of response measure, attitude extremity, and behavioral consequences of reported attitude change.

Abstract

Four studies examined the generality of attitude polarization (C. G. Lord, L. Ross, & M. R. Lepper, 1979). Biased assimilation of essays on 2 controversial issues was substantial and correlated with reported attitude change. Polarization was observed for reported attitude change on capital punishment and generally stronger in Ss with extreme than moderate attitudes. Polarization was not indicated in a pre-post measurement design. For affirmative action, reported polarization was not observed. The hypothesis that Ss reporting polarization would subsequently write particularly strong essays was not supported, although those reporting depolarization wrote relatively weak essays. The results suggest the relevance of individual differences in reported attitude change but do not confirm the powerful inferences frequently drawn regarding the pervasive, undesirable consequences of self-reported attitude polarization. An influential, frequently cited experiment in the social cognition literature is that by Lord, Ross, and Lepper (1979). In this study, proponents and opponents of capital punishment were shown an identical set of alleged research findings containing evidence both in favor of and against capital punishment. Two important phenomena were observed. First, subjects evaluated more positively the research that agreed with their preexisting position, a result termed biased assimilation. Thus, subjects who were in favor of capital punishment rated method Xzs superior method Y if the former yielded support for the deterrent effect of capital punishment, but rated the identical method as inferior if it refuted the efficacy of capital punishment. The converse was true for subjects opposed capital punishment. The second, particularly intriguing finding was that subjects reported that their attitudes had become more extreme in the direction of their initial point of view after evaluating the research evidence, an effect termed attitude polarization. Thus, showing proponents and opponents of capital punishment an identical body of mixed evidence appeared to increase further the gap between their views (Lord et al, 1979, p. 2105). Lord et al. (1979) suggested that in the subjects' biased processing of the research information, they had emerged with an inflated sense of the amount of evidence supporting their initial belief. Correlational analyses involving the relative degree of biased assimilation and the magnitude of reported attitude change (polarization) supported this account. That subjects gave substantially higher evaluations research that supported